Dear IE, I'm Leaving You For Good

[Asher]

Originally posted by Q Cubed
basic tab management isn't "bloat" so to speak.

Basic tab management exists in the default Firefox.
Advanced tab management does not.

the active bookmarks/automatic RSS feeds are pretty useless to me. i'll wager that most people don't know about them, or how to use them, and won't be using them at all.
and they're about as useful as basic tab management. strange, that.

But they don't add any overhead unless they use them. Advanced tab management like you've described would need additional listeners, which uses more memory and runs all the time.

Stuff like Live Bookmarks only "bloat" runtime performance with a simple if statement in the parser, looking for the declared RSS feed.

asher, i'm not talking whether or not opera is superior to firefox overall. i'm stating that there are two features that are relatively basic and wouldn't add too much to the code or overhead, and that opera's implementation of it and firefox's lack of it is still an issue.

I don't understand why you think those are basic features. They are advanced features, and ones most people would not use.

I don't understand why they need to be bundled if most people won't use them, and they add to overhead.

They're not included because:
1) This is a 1.0 release, and there's still a ton of bugs to be fixed. Why the hell would they include even more advanced stuff by default, with low amounts of testing and high amounts of complexity?
2) Most people don't need them
3) Extensions exist for people who do want them in the mean time

[Kuciwalker]

I'm posting this from Lynx

[Q Classic]

links2/links is better than lynx.

======

I don't understand why you think those are basic features. They are advanced features, and ones most people would not use.

I don't understand why they need to be bundled if most people won't use them, and they add to overhead.

i don't understand why you don't think they're basic features. how is wanting to rearrange tabs an advanced feature? how is detaching a tab an advanced feature? how is having the browser open up to where you were last an advanced feature?

hell, i'm sure a lot of people would definitely use session saving, if they knew what it was. i'm sure a lot of people wouldn't mind being able to reposition and detach tabs.

1) This is a 1.0 release, and there's still a ton of bugs to be fixed. Why the hell would they include even more advanced stuff by default, with low amounts of testing and high amounts of complexity?
2) Most people don't need them
3) Extensions exist for people who do want them in the mean time

this logic, mind you, could, and quite frankly, do apply to those RSS bookmarks as well.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Q Cubed
i don't understand why you don't think they're basic features. how is wanting to rearrange tabs an advanced feature? how is detaching a tab an advanced feature? how is having the browser open up to where you were last an advanced feature?

Because that's not a basic use.

Basic tab management allows you to switch tabs, open tabs, close tabs, open links in the background, etc.

Detaching tabs, moving them around between windows, reordering them, etc. are advanced use that most people wouldn't use.

this logic, mind you, could, and quite frankly, do apply to those RSS bookmarks as well.

True enough. The thing is, someone made the code and it was of high quality already, so it was considered. No such work has been done for advanced tab management.

In fact, there are still significant issues with the "single window mode" with 1.0 that are being addressed for 1.1.

It's one thing to add a feature like Live Bookmarks, and it's another to keep extending more advanced features onto tab browsers that are still quite buggy.

[Q Classic]

Because that's not a basic use.

...

Detaching tabs, moving them around between windows, reordering them, etc. are advanced use that most people wouldn't use.

reordering tabs is hardly an advanced feature most people wouldn't use. it's really not all that different from repositioning windows on a desktop.

True enough. The thing is, someone made the code and it was of high quality already, so it was considered. No such work has been done for advanced tab management.

In fact, there are still significant issues with the "single window mode" with 1.0 that are being addressed for 1.1.

It's one thing to add a feature like Live Bookmarks, and it's another to keep extending more advanced features onto tab browsers that are still quite buggy.

i understand the code isn't there yet. however, what i'm saying, and have been saying, is that opera's implementation of tabs is better. hypothetically, were the code there and of high quality, it certainly sounds like you're dead set against its inclusion, and i can't understand why.

[Asher]

Because many Firefox users don't even use tabs at all, and even fewer would have any desire to re-arrange them or move them into new windows.

Honestly, I consider myself a power user, and the times I'd want to do that...well, I can't think of any.

[Q Classic]

Because many Firefox users don't even use tabs at all, and even fewer would have any desire to re-arrange them or move them into new windows.

many firefox users don't have the foggiest clue what RSS feeds are, and most people won't be using them.

Honestly, I consider myself a power user, and the times I'd want to do that...well, I can't think of any.

i consider myself a power user, and i can't understand why anybody would want to have a built-in rss reader.

my point remains, opera's implementation of tabs is superior to that of firefox's, and it's a shame firefox doesn't match it yet.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Q Cubed
many firefox users don't have the foggiest clue what RSS feeds are, and most people won't be using them.

But it doesn't add any overhead. That's the difference. It added something like 8KB to the executable when the feature was patched in.

my point remains, opera's implementation of tabs is superior to that of firefox's, and it's a shame firefox doesn't match it yet.

Depends. I hate Opera's tabs, and its interface in general.

[FrustratedPoet]

Opera's default GUI is a big pile of poo.

[Q Classic]

we'll just have to agree to disagree, asher.

[Alex]

The problem is that Opera implements true MDI, which allow easier handling of tabs, while Firefox does not do this. I had to install Tabbrowsing Preferences in Firefox so I could have something closer to the functionality I have in Opera. And even so tabbrowsing in Firefox feels clunkier than in Opera (and it doesn't have the same array of features - I will never install the powerfull but buggy Tabbrowser Extensions).

Themes in Opera integrate better with the GUI too. Though I have to say that this is not a fair comparison, since Firefox is still in its infancy.

But it is a matter of personal preference after all. I just happen to love Opera.

[alva]

MDI

Which is AFAIK very resource intensive.

[Alex]

Very resource intensive?

My Opera loads fast and runs smoothly even with lots of tabs opened.

[Urban Ranger]

Resource intensive is not the same as slow.

[Agathon]

I have met a few people vehemently opossed to tabs and they claim that the way WinXP (and some *nix windows managers) stacks windows in the taskbar is just as good - but it isn't. You can't change between websites anywhere nearly as quickly. I think in reality they are just scared of non-M$.

I remember some Wintel fanatic claiming this on Apolyton. If only I could remember who it was...

Oh, and Mr Nice Guy is formally ejected from the Mac Club due to his admission of using IE. No real mac user would use IE.